Columbus tubing...

[Catulle]

If I recall correctly, Columbus has been manufacturing tubes for bicycle frames for well over forty years. Is that correct? I also understand that they mostly, only(?), market tubes for bicycle frames. Correct? Reynolds also has been marketing bicycle frames for well over forty years, iirc.

In any case, if Bianchi and Legnano and Mercier and Cinelli and so many of the frame makers of forty and more years ago were building their frames with either Columbus or Reynolds tubes, why do some people refer to those old frames as made out of lead pipes and so on? Of course, metallurgy and production processes and the like have advanced a great deal since; but are the frames used by Coppi and Poulidor way inferior to a modern day Colnago or Cinelli or De Rosa steel frame; or even to a modern custom frame made by one of the better builders? If so, please explain why. Thanks.

[hampco]

My understanding is that the old stuff wasn't strong enough to draw as thin as we do nowadays: .9mm at the ends versus .5-to-.7 now; .6mm in the middle versus .5-to-.3 now. In essence, we can now build a lighter frame but with similar longevity.

Lugs have also improved in terms of more precise dimensions, now investment cast versus the old stamped/welded lugs.

Welding has entered the picture, which means that modern steel tubing needs to have characteristics that give as strong a frame as possible apres welding.

The old steel frames, as I'm sure Richard will tell you, were built in crude factories with minimal QC. Most new frames are built using less heat and more operator skill than in the past, imho.

Yeah, some folks like old bikes, old cars, old watches - whatever. Maybe they're better, maybe they're not - but they're still pretty cool. My take is that old stuff is more likely to break than new stuff. I hate having shit break.

[Shinomaster]

How does the newest stuff compare to the best stuff from the 80's and 90's?

[Catulle]

Yup, the culture of the old shops, and new ones for that matter. I overlooked that. I can see how a one of for Coppi would've been very well put together by one particular person, but mass production was something else.

Great answer, Thank you.

[Fixed]

i like the old bikes forks
cheers
butch

[dbrk]

How does the newest stuff compare to the best stuff from the 80's and 90's?

Let's start by saying that "better" and "worse" might apply more directly to the proposed function of the bike and, then from the builder's point of view, it's construction. Most old steel bikes ---not all--- were not made remotely as well as what we see today from the best builders, though a perfectly fine bike like a '90something Bstone is no better or worse in construction than most of the better English bikes from the late '70s. (Old English racers tend to be better made under the paint than Italian or French bikes, though there are exceptions. For example, some of the Cinellis are a step above and Masi but that's a different story.) But production bikes from any era don't compare well against the best custom builders today in terms of quality of build. I mean things like clean brazing, voids, alignment, mitering, etc. When you see a Sachs, Goodrich, DK, Vanilla, Spectrum, et.al. today you are looking at the best bikes have EVER been made. You have to take the paint off, saw some lugs cross-wise, and know what to look for: paint always can conceal a multitude of sins. But that said, most decent production bikes don't fall apart or break, not if they were even reasonably made.

Modern tubing makes a difference for racing and weight and other factors that push the bicycle to its limits, which is not something most people do. But if that's your agenda and you have the skills and the talent, then you want to race only on a modern bike with modern equipment ---materials don't matter as much as overall design.

But here's my real point: old bikes offer a different kind of experience. It's great we still have them and I, for one, enjoy riding all sorts of bikes. I don't expect a bike of 531 with Super Record to ride much like, say, the 953 Tournesol with SRAM Red. It's not better or worse, as I see it, it's just different. I would love to have a 30th Anniversary Spectrum with Super Record built by today's Spectrum because Jeff and Tom are even better now as builders. What is not to love?

I set my agenda when I go for a ride. Sometimes I want to flail the crap out of a modern race. Sometimes I want to cruise along swift and prepared for all weathers but at different purposes and limits. No contemporary racer would choose not to use modern equipment but a rider might enjoy any sort of set up depending on his or her skills and agenda. Riding my brand new-ish Mariposa with its 1955 Campagnolo Paris-Roubaix changer takes skill and is a blast!

Material becomes a factor after the design is properly executed and then matches the purpose. That sounds simple but getting it right is not so easy atmo.

[Catulle]

Thank you, Douglas.

I always thought that the guy building a Legnano back then was thinking about stopping to buy bread on his way home and hoping he'd get paid at the end of the week and how to pay for the pair of shoes he promised his mistress. Now days, one or two of the better builders, as he's holding the torch, is thinking about how nice his work looks and how he needs to get it right in order to prevail in the market and for his own self-esteem and that he can't rush the work to go back to milf.com or maybe he can.

It'd be interesting to bring Coppi back from the dead and ask him what he thinks of a C-50.

[acotts]

Thank you, Douglas.

It'd be interesting to bring Coppi back from the dead and ask him what he thinks of a C-50.

or milf.com

[GrantM]

How does the newest stuff compare to the best stuff from the 80's and 90's?

New super steels are stronger, but the steel has the same stiffness,
and the same weight as before.

In order to make this steel into lighter tubing, you need to use less steel.
This is possible because the steel is stronger. So to lighten up, this means
drawing thinner walls....but thinner walls means less stiffness.

So you make the tubes larger diameter to increase the stiffness.
You end up with larger diameter, thinner wall tubes that overall
weigh less than the classic 'old' SL or 531 tubes.

There is still lots of room to 'tune' the ride quality of a frame by mixing
and matching the size and wall thickness of the tubes to make the
resulting frame have ride qualities intended by the builder.

[Shinomaster]

Thanks dbrk I get what you are saying. My question was more directed at Someone like Sachs or Pegoretti who (I'm assuming, and I should never assume) have been building bikes more or less the same way for a few decades. If they took an old late 80's top of the line tube set and lugs, and some new Pego-Richie pipes and made two identically designed and constructed frames, how would they differ? Would it mostly be a difference in weight? I'm guessing the bike with the new tubing would be stiffer? Sorry if these seems like an obtuse question!

[GrantM]

It'd be interesting to bring Coppi back from the dead and ask him what he thinks of a C-50.

The fact that older bicycles often saw such bad roads explains a lot about their design.
It's easy to forget that. ...so if he had to ride on dirt roads, he might choose his old Bianchi.

[Shinomaster]

The fact that older bicycles often saw such bad roads explains a lot about their design.
It's easy to forget that. ...so if he had to ride on dirt roads, he might choose his old Bianchi.

HE'd choose a Cross-Vagen ;)

[Dave Kirk]

New super steels are stronger, but the steel has the same stiffness,
and the same weight as before.

In order to make this steel into lighter tubing, you need to use less steel.
This is possible because the steel is stronger. So to lighten up, this means
drawing thinner walls....but thinner walls means less stiffness.

So you make the tubes larger diameter to increase the stiffness.
You end up with larger diameter, thinner wall tubes that overall
weigh less than the classic 'old' SL or 531 tubes.

There is still lots of room to 'tune' the ride quality of a frame by mixing
and matching the size and wall thickness of the tubes to make the
resulting frame have ride qualities intended by the builder.

Nailed it.

Dave

[Catulle]

The fact that older bicycles often saw such bad roads explains a lot about their design.
It's easy to forget that. ...so if he had to ride on dirt roads, he might choose his old Bianchi.

Good point. Those were nasty gravel and dirt roads all too often.

[Shinomaster]

Good point. Those were nasty gravel and dirt roads all too often.

Did you hear about the unpaved TT in the Giro? Everyone thought it was too hard.

[GrantM]

Nailed it.

Dave

thanks dave.

I like to make this explaination clear, becuase the short-hand term 'lighter steel'
is so often tossed around. As you well know, all steel weighs the same.

It's "lighter tubing" that makes the frame lighter... from less using less steel.

[Shinomaster]

thanks dave.

I like to make this explaination clear, becuase the short-hand term 'lighter steel'
is so often tossed around. As you well know, all steel weighs the same.

It's "lighter tubing" that makes the frame lighter... from less using less steel.

I understand that Grant. I meant to say lighter pipes. I know that 50 pounds of Columbus el-os steel, weighs the same as 50 pounds of feathers etc..

[GrantM]

I understand that Grant. I meant to say lighter pipes. I know that 50 pounds of Columbus el-os steel, weighs the same as 50 pounds of feathers etc..

Do you understand?
That's not the same as the point i'm making...

any two steel tubes with the same diameter and thickness wall
will weigh the same...
doesn't matter what alloy it is.

EL-OS steel weighs the same as 531, 753, SL, SLX, 953, or Pegoritchie.



g

[hampco]

any two steel tubes with the same diameter and thickness wall
will weigh the same...
doesn't matter what alloy it is.

and, theoretically, will ride the same

[e-RICHIE]

Thanks dbrk I get what you are saying. My question was more directed at Someone like Sachs or Pegoretti who (I'm assuming, and I should never assume) have been building bikes more or less the same way for a few decades. If they took an old late 80's top of the line tube set and lugs, and some new Pego-Richie pipes and made two identically designed and constructed frames, how would they differ? Would it mostly be a difference in weight? I'm guessing the bike with the new tubing would be stiffer? Sorry if these seems like an obtuse question!

none of us has been building more or less the same way
for decades. and ps, what does stiffer mean atmo? i never
knew. really.